CO2 sequestration in deep saline aquifers with integrated thermo-hydro-mechanical model
-
摘要:
碳捕获与储存技术对缓解全球气候危机至关重要，深部咸水层因巨大储存潜力成为首选储存地点。然而，CO2受浮力作用易通过裂缝或断层向地面逃逸。因此，研究CO2注入对天然断层影响以及断层活化对CO2迁移的反馈效应意义重大。构建了完全耦合的两相热−水−力模型，以模拟CO2注入、断层失效与羽流传播间相互作用。研究表明：①断层激活后渗透率分布呈显著二分性，且高渗区形成与孔隙压力场时空演化紧密耦合，率先失效区域促进孔压释放并抑制了断层进一步活化，使断层呈局部激活特征。②CO2迁移范围与岩体冷却区域不等价，羽流逸散快速而广袤，经2 a注入羽流前缘可达
1500 m；温度场扩散缓慢且集中，经20 a注入冷却区域仅200 m，受限温度场不易诱使断层活化，利于碳封存长期安全。③断层构型对封存安全性具有重大影响，以逆断层封闭性能最佳，正断层最劣，走滑断层介于两者之间，逆断层对CO2有效封存量比正断层高出约25%。建立的含损伤行为的两相热−水−力模型鲁棒性良好，能准确刻画断层渐进失效与羽流迁移的复杂交互机制，为碳封存工程长期安全性评估提供了理论与技术支撑。Abstract:Objective Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is crucial for mitigating global climate change, and deep saline aquifers, with the largest identified storage potential, are considered the preferred storage sites. However, CO2 injection is prone to escape through interconnected fractures or reactivated faults toward the surface due to buoyancy. Therefore, investigating the impact of CO2 injection on faults and the feedback effect of fault reactivation on CO2 leakage is of significant importance.
Methods In this study, we develop a fully coupled two-phase thermo-hydro-mechanical model to simulate the interactions between CO2 injection, fault failure, and CO2 plume propagation.
Results The modeling results reveal that upon fault activation, the permeability distribution exhibits a clear dichotomy. Moreover, the evolution of fault permeability is closely linked to the spatio-temporal changes in the pore pressure field. As the initial failure zone evolves into a high-permeability area, it facilitates the release of pore pressure, thereby suppressing further fault activation and leading to localized fault reactivation. Additionally, the migration range of CO2 plumes is not directly correlated with the cooled region of the rock mass. The plume spreads rapidly and extensively, reaching a front migration distance of up to
1500 m after just two years of continuous injection. In contrast, the temperature field spreads slowly and is more concentrated, with the cooled zone reaching only 200 m after 20 years of injection. This restricted temperature field is less likely to induce fault reactivation, which enhances the long-term safety of carbon sequestration. Finally, fault configuration significantly affects CO2 storage safety. Reverse faults provide the best sealing performance, normal faults the worst, and strike-slip faults lie in between. Specifically, the effective CO2 storage capacity in reverse faults is approximately 25% higher than in normal faults.Conclusion In conclusion, the developed two-phase thermo-hydro-mechanical model, incorporating damage behavior, demonstrates robust performance and effectively captures the complex interaction between fault progressive failure and CO2 plume migration. This model offers both theoretical and technical support for assessing the long-term safety of carbon sequestration projects.
-
图 1 非等温热固结模型及其边界条件示意（pL. 外部荷载；T. 顶面温度；p0，T0. 初始压力、温度；z. z轴坐标轴；下同）
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the non-isothermal thermal consolidation model and its boundary conditions
图 2 非等温热固结问题数值解与解析解比较（h. 土柱高度）
Figure 2. Contrast between the numerical and analytical solutions for the non-isothermal consolidation model
图 3 二维多层储层模型示意图
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of the two-dimensional multi-layer reservoir model
图 4 断层剪切应力和抗剪强度历史曲线
Figure 4. Historical curves of fault shear stress and shear strength
图 8 断层激活对CO2羽流扩散速度的影响（$S_{{\mathrm{CO}}_2} $为CO2饱和度，下同）
Figure 8. Accelerating diffusion process of CO2 plumes at the moment of fault activation
图 9 注入周期内CO2饱和度场分布
Figure 9. Evolution of CO2 saturation field during the injection cycle
图 10 注入周期下储层最终温度场和CO2密度分布
Figure 10. Final distribution of the temperature field and CO2 density during the injection cycle
图 11 停泵后CO2分布的长期演化
Figure 11. Long-term evolution of CO2 distribution after pump shutdown
图 13 正断层破裂过程与渗透率演化（k. 渗透率；Δp. 孔隙压力增量，下同）
Figure 13. Fracture process and permeability evolution of the normal fault
图 14 逆断层破裂过程与渗透率演化
Figure 14. Fracture process and permeability evolution of the reverse fault
图 15 不同构型断层下CO2流线与CO2饱和度场分布
Figure 15. CO2 flow lines and saturation field distribution under different fault configurations
图 16 不同类型断层封存效率比较
Figure 16. Comparison of storage efficiency of different types of faults
表 1 一维非等温热固结模型采用的各物理量
Table 1. Parameters used in the one-dimensional non-isothermal thermal consolidation model
参数 取值 模型尺寸h/m 1.0 土体热膨胀系数αs/K−1
水的热膨胀系数αf/K−1
荷载大小pL/Pa
弹性模量E/Pa
泊松比v
比奥系数b
土体孔隙度ϕ
水力传导率K/（m·s−1）
水的密度ρw/（kg·m−3）
固相密度ρs/（kg·m−3）
热传导系数keff/（W·m−1·K−1）
水的比热cw/（J·kg−1·K−1）
固相比热cs/（J·kg−1·K−1）
初始孔隙压力p0/Pa
土体初始温度T0/℃
外部温度T/℃1.5×10−5
2.0×10−4
1.0×105
6.0×105
0.3
1.0
0.4
2.07×10−9
1 000
2 600
0.5
4 200
800
1.0×105
10
60
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 数值计算所使用参数
Table 2. Parameters used in the numerical simulation
参数 取值 弹性模量E/GPa
泊松比v
比奥系数b
固相密度ρs/（kg·m−3）
固相热容cs/（J·kg−1·K−1）
固相热导率ks/（W·m−1·/K−1）
岩体热膨胀系数αm/K−1
渗透率增强因子En
体应变放大因子A
渗透率模型本构系数n
断层内聚力c/Pa
断层内摩擦角θ/（°）10
0.25
1.0
2 400
850
3.0
5×10−6
1 000[34]
10[24]
10
0
54CO2注入速率Minj/（kg·m−1·s−1）
CO2注入温度Tinj/℃0.02[19]
10℃毛细管入口压力pec/kPa
毛管力模型本构系数m
毛管力模型本构系数l
咸水残余饱和度srw
CO2残余饱和度srn200[42]
0.5
0.5
0.1
0目标储层孔隙度及渗透率
盖层孔隙度及渗透率
上覆含水层孔隙度及渗透率
基底含水层孔隙度及渗透率
断层孔隙度及渗透率ϕ=0.1；k=1×10−13 m2[19]
ϕ=0.01；k=1×10−19 m2[19]
ϕ=0.1；k=1×10−14 m2
ϕ=0.01；k=1×10−16 m2
ϕ=0.1；k=1×10−16 m2[19]
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] METZ B,DAVIDSON O,DE CONINCK H,et al. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage[R]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005. [2] 李阳,张建,范振宁,等. 齐鲁石化−胜利油田CO2长输管道数智化关键技术与创新实践[J]. 天然气工业,2024,44(9):1-12.LI Y,ZHANG J,FAN Z N,et al. Key technologies for digital intelligence of long-distance CO2 pipeline and their innovative practices in the Qilu Petrochemical-Shengli Oilfield CO2 pipeline[J]. Natural Gas Industry,2024,44(9):1-12. (in Chinese with English abstract [3] 王延欣. 枯竭油气藏储集库储热供暖耦合CO2封存性能分析[J]. 地质科技通报,2024,43(3):12-21.WANG Y X. Performance analysis of thermal energy storage for space heating and CO2 sequestration in depleted oil and gas reservoirs[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology,2024,43(3):12-21. (in Chinese with English abstract [4] RUTQVIST J,WU Y S,TSANG C F,et al. A modeling approach for analysis of coupled multiphase fluid flow,heat transfer,and deformation in fractured porous rock[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,2002,39(4):429-442. doi: 10.1016/S1365-1609(02)00022-9 [5] MILLER S A,COLLETTINI C,CHIARALUCE L,et al. Aftershocks driven by a high-pressure CO2 source at depth[J]. Nature,2004,427:724-727. doi: 10.1038/nature02251 [6] RINGROSE P,ATBI M,MASON D,et al. Plume development around Well KB-502 at the In Salah CO2 storage site[J]. First Break,2009,27(1). [7] VASCO D,RUCCI A,FERRETTI A,et al. Satellite-based measurements of surface deformation reveal fluid flow associated with the geological storage of carbon dioxide[J]. Geophysical Research Letters,2010,37(3):L03303. [8] 郑长远,雷宏武,崔银祥,等. 西宁盆地南部天然CO2泄漏和浅部含水层响应[J]. 地质科技通报,2023,42(6):223-232.ZHENG C Y,LEI H W,CUI Y X,et al. Natural CO2 leakage and responses of shallow aquifers in the southern Xining Basin[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology,2023,42(6):223-232. (in Chinese) [9] BACHU S. Screening and ranking of sedimentary basins for sequestration of CO2 in geological media in response to climate change[J]. Environmental Geology,2003,44(3):277-289. doi: 10.1007/s00254-003-0762-9 [10] CELIA M A,BACHU S,NORDBOTTEN J M,et al. Status of CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers with emphasis on modeling approaches and practical simulations[J]. Water Resources Research,2015,51(9):6846-6892. doi: 10.1002/2015WR017609 [11] BIRKHOLZER J T,ZHOU Q L. Basin-scale hydrogeologic impacts of CO2 storage:Capacity and regulatory implications[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2009,3(6):745-756. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.07.002 [12] PRUESS K. Numerical simulation of CO2 leakage from a geologic disposal reservoir,including transitions from super- to subcritical conditions,and boiling of liquid CO2[J]. SPE Journal,2004,9(2):237-248. doi: 10.2118/86098-PA [13] GASDA S E,STEPHANSEN A F,AAVATSMARK I,et al. Upscaled modeling of CO2 injection and migration with coupled thermal processes[J]. Energy Procedia,2013,40:384-391. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.08.044 [14] PRUESS K. On CO2 fluid flow and heat transfer behavior in the subsurface,following leakage from a geologic storage reservoir[J]. Environmental Geology,2008,54(8):1677-1686. doi: 10.1007/s00254-007-0945-x [15] GAO X Y,YANG S L,SHEN B,et al. Effects of CO2 variable thermophysical properties and phase behavior on CO2 geological storage:A numerical case study[J]. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer,2024,221:125073. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2023.125073 [16] MEGUERDIJIAN S,PAWAR R J,HARP D R,et al. Thermal and solubility effects on fault leakage during geologic carbon storage[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2022,116:103633. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103633 [17] SÁEZ-LEIVA F,HURTADO D E,GERBAULT M,et al. Fluid flow migration,rock stress and deformation due to a crustal fault slip in a geothermal system:A poro-elasto-plastic perspective[J]. Earth and Planetary Science Letters,2023,604:117994. doi: 10.1016/j.jpgl.2023.117994 [18] WU Z J,CUI W J,WENG L,et al. Modeling geothermal heat extraction-induced potential fault activation by developing an FDEM-based THM coupling scheme[J]. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,2023,56(5):3279-3299. doi: 10.1007/s00603-023-03218-1 [19] CAPPA F,RUTQVIST J. Modeling of coupled deformation and permeability evolution during fault reactivation induced by deep underground injection of CO2[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2011,5(2):336-346. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.08.005 [20] 罗亚南,蒋坤卿,黄思浩,等. 地热水回灌耦合CO2地质封存系统安全性分析[J]. 地质科技通报,2024,43(3):59-67.LUO Y N,JIANG K Q,HUANG S H,et al. Safety analysis of geothermal water recharge coupled with CO2 geological storage system[J]. Bulletin of Geological Science and Technology,2024,43(3):59-67. (in Chinese with English abstract [21] FU P C,SETTGAST R R,HAO Y,et al. The influence of hydraulic fracturing on carbon storage performance[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research(Solid Earth),2017,122(12):9931-9949. doi: 10.1002/2017JB014942 [22] FU P C,JU X,HUANG J X,et al. Thermo-poroelastic responses of a pressure-driven fracture in a carbon storage reservoir and the implications for injectivity and caprock integrity[J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,2021,45(6):719-737. doi: 10.1002/nag.3165 [23] LUU K,SCHOENBALL M,OLDENBURG C M,et al. Coupled hydromechanical modeling of induced seismicity from CO2 injection in the Illinois Basin[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research (Solid Earth),2022,127(5):e2021JB023496. doi: 10.1029/2021JB023496 [24] KANIN E,GARAGASH I,BORONIN S,et al. Geomechanical risk assessment for CO2 storage in deep saline aquifers[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,2024,17(4):1986-2008. [25] LIAO J X,HU K,MEHMOOD F,et al. Embedded discrete fracture network method for numerical estimation of long-term performance of CO2-EGS under THM coupled framework[J]. Energy,2023,285:128734. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.128734 [26] MEGUERDIJIAN S,JHA B. Quantification of fault leakage dynamics based on leakage magnitude and dip angle[J]. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,2021,45(16):2303-2320. doi: 10.1002/nag.3267 [27] NORDBOTTEN J M,CELIA M A,BACHU S. Injection and storage of CO2 in deep saline aquifers:Analytical solution for CO2 plume evolution during injection[J]. Transport in Porous Media,2005,58(3):339-360. doi: 10.1007/s11242-004-0670-9 [28] VAN GENUCHTEN M T. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils[J]. Soil Science Society of America Journal,1980,44(5):892-898. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x [29] LI S B,LI X,ZHANG D X. A fully coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical,three-dimensional model for hydraulic stimulation treatments[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering,2016,34:64-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2016.06.046 [30] LEWIS R W,SHREFLER B A. The finite element method in the static and dynamic deformation and consolidation of porous media[M]. 2nd ed. New York:John Wiley,1998. [31] NIELD D A,BEJAN A. Convection in porous media[M]. [S. l.]:Springer Nature,2017. [32] SPAN R,WAGNER W. A new equation of state for carbon dioxide covering the fluid region from the triple-point temperature to 1100 K at pressures up to 800 MPa[J]. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data,1996,25(6):1509-1596. doi: 10.1063/1.555991 [33] RUTQVIST J,BIRKHOLZER J,CAPPA F,et al. Estimating maximum sustainable injection pressure during geological sequestration of CO2 using coupled fluid flow and geomechanical fault-slip analysis[J]. Energy Conversion and Management,2007,48(6):1798-1807. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2007.01.021 [34] GUGLIELMI Y,ELSWORTH D,CAPPA F,et al. In situ observations on the coupling between hydraulic diffusivity and displacements during fault reactivation in shales[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research(Solid Earth),2015,120(11):7729-7748. doi: 10.1002/2015JB012158 [35] RUTQVIST J,GRAUPNER B,GUGLIELMI Y,et al. An international model comparison study of controlled fault activation experiments in argillaceous claystone at the Mont Terri Laboratory[J]. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,2020,136:104505. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104505 [36] SHIPTON Z K,COWIE P A. A conceptual model for the origin of fault damage zone structures in high-porosity sandstone[J]. Journal of Structural Geology,2003,25(3):333-344. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(02)00037-8 [37] GUGLIELMI Y,NUSSBAUM C,CAPPA F,et al. Field-scale fault reactivation experiments by fluid injection highlight aseismic leakage in caprock analogs:Implications for CO2 sequestration[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2021,111:103471. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103471 [38] NGUYEN T S,GUGLIELMI Y,GRAUPNER B,et al. Mathematical modelling of fault reactivation induced by water injection[J]. Minerals,2019,9(5):282. doi: 10.3390/min9050282 [39] CHIN L Y,RAGHAVAN R,THOMAS L K. Fully coupled geomechanics and fluid-flow analysis of wells with stress-dependent permeability[J]. SPE Journal,2000,5(1):32-45. doi: 10.2118/58968-PA [40] GUO T K,TANG S J,SUN J,et al. A coupled thermal-hydraulic-mechanical modeling and evaluation of geothermal extraction in the enhanced geothermal system based on analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Applied Energy,2020,258:113981. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113981 [41] 白冰. 岩土颗粒介质非等温−维热固结特性研究[J]. 工程力学,2005,22(5):186-191.BAI B. One-dimensional thermal consolidation characteristics of geotechnical media under non-isothermal condition[J]. Engineering Mechanics,2005,22(5):186-191. (in Chinese with English abstract [42] CLASS H,EBIGBO A,HELMIG R,et al. A benchmark study on problems related to CO2 storage in geologic formations[J]. Computational Geosciences,2009,13(4):409-434. doi: 10.1007/s10596-009-9146-x [43] CONSTANTIN J,PEYAUD J B,VERGÉLY P,et al. Evolution of the structural fault permeability in argillaceous rocks in a polyphased tectonic context[J]. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth(Parts A/B/C),2004,29(1):25-41. doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2003.11.001 [44] GUDMUNDSSON A. Effects of Young's modulus on fault displacement[J]. Comptes Rendus Geoscience,2004,336(1):85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.crte.2003.09.018 [45] WILSON J E,CHESTER J S,CHESTER F M. Microfracture analysis of fault growth and wear processes,Punchbowl Fault,San Andreas system,California[J]. Journal of Structural Geology,2003,25(11):1855-1873. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8141(03)00036-1 [46] RUTQVIST J,RINALDI A P,CAPPA F,et al. Fault activation and induced seismicity in geological carbon storage:Lessons learned from recent modeling studies[J]. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,2016,8(6):789-804. doi: 10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.09.001 [47] VILARRASA V,OLIVELLA S,CARRERA J,et al. Long term impacts of cold CO2 injection on the caprock integrity[J]. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control,2014,24:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.02.016 -
下载:
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 515
- PDF下载量: 40
- 被引次数: 0
